tv The Communicators Rep. Greg Walden Sen. Ed Markey CSPAN March 23, 2019 6:32pm-7:02pm EDT
name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what is important to them. doors forned the washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. this was true people power. the landscape has clearly changed. monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. it is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider on television and online. is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> new york senator kirsten gillibrand will hold a campaign kickoff rally in front of trump international hotel in new york city.
coverage will be on c-span, online, and on our radio app. >> >> it is the same goal. to make sure the internet is , that it is free. that there is no discrimination, that can be used against anyone regardless of whether they are a small company or small individual. net neutrality is another way of saying nondiscrimination. everyone is equal. once you pay your monthly bill, you should be able to go
wherever you want and not have restrictions that a company can place upon you. host: aren't we living in that world today? are there restrictions today? sen. markey: right now, there is a court case in the district of columbia circuit court of appeals. as a result, the broadband companies don't feel safe to begin to impose discriminatory practices that could hurt consumers. it could hurt small entrepreneurs. pending the outcome of the case, right now they are not doing anything that is anti-consumer or anti-competitive but they fought vigorously to take net neutrality off of the books. so if they have no intention on discriminating, why did they want the antidiscrimination law taken off the books other than maybe after the court case is decided, they are free to be able to once again do whatever
they want to consumers regardless of whether or not they are paid the bill the month. host: does your save the internet act include title ii as the reigning regulatory framework? sen. markey: our goal is to make sure that we treat it like a telecommunications service, that we ensure consumers are given the same protections that were traditionally provided to people used their telephone. this is an upgraded version of it, but still, the principles should be intact. you have universal access, as a consumer you are treated equally, and the cable companies, telephone companies just cannot discriminate against you. host: this would return, then, the regulatory framework to the fcc from the ftc? sen. markey: our bill returns
america to the same rules which barack obama's federal communications commission put on the books in 2016 and donald trump's federal communications commission took off the books in december of 2017. we go back to the obama era. we go back to nondiscrimination. you can't just take people upside down. you can't create fast lanes and slow lanes, make people pay extra, all of that was protected against during the obama era and all my bill does is return us to that era and i'm doing it with chuck schumer and nancy pelosi and mike doyle and many other great people. i think we have a great chance to build momentum this year featuring those protections. host: it probably has a better chance in the house and the senate, correct?
sen. markey: i think there is a high probability it will move through the house, but last year, i brought a congressional review act to overturn that which the trump federal communications commission had done, which is take the obama rules off the books and i won 52-47 on the senate floor with republicans voting with me. i am not ruling out once the bill passes the house that it is impossible for us to generate a vote out on the senate floor, as well. it is only supported by 86% of all americans. it is only something that pretty much every millennial believes is a right they should be given as uses of the internet, so there will be lots of political pressure on the senate once it passes the house to give a vote to the american people on the free end open internet bill. host: as a consumer, what would we notice right away? anything different? sen. markey: well, for the time
being, we just want to restore that which was in place until january of 2017. the broadband companies haven't had the temerity during the pendency of the litigation in the circuit court or appeals. it is really to protect against consequences for consumers wants the litigation has ended and broadband companies feel free to discriminate. if they say they don't want to discriminate, support our bill and it will be enshrined in law and no one will ever have to worry that their internet is anything other than their own once they pay the bill. host: senator markey, privacy has become an issue discussed on
capitol hill. are there privacy provisions in your bill? sen. markey: well, it allows for the traditional telecommunications laws to be used, but on privacy, there was a separate proceeding that the federal communications commission promulgated during the obama administration it was also stripped off the books by the republicans on the floor of the united states senate in 2017, so there is a separate privacy bill now moving through the united states senate and house, and my hope is we will be able to enshrine those safeguards in place legislatively and as a result, permanently. and the ftc and fcc will safeguard those. i am hopefully, especially for
children, we can put a privacy bill of rights on the books. host: what is your reaction to some of the revelations about facebook and their use of data and lack of privacy? sen. markey: it just proves there is a dickensian quality to the internet. it is the best of wires and worse of wires time attain you sleep. it can enable and in all. it can degrade and the base. we are now clearly seeing the sinister side of cyberspace and it is time for congress to take action to ensure we put protections on the books that guarantee we don't see a repetition of what we have all learned in the past few years
about what facebook and others have allowed to happen to the american public on behalf of their own profit-making at a corporate level. host: is it important that congress act as states have acted on their own on net neutrality? sen. markey: california has acted on privacy, now corporate america is coming to washington and saying, i think we need a national privacy bill. it is being driven by what is happening internationally and in california. what they want more than anything is a preemption of california law and other states that might act. the question that is posed to congress is if you want us to free up california, how strong is the privacy law for all 50 states you are willing to put on the books? that is the debate we will have in the congress this year and for my opinion, if it is not the strongest possible privacy protection, then there is no point in preempting the states that want to give strong privacy protection to their citizens. host: a couple more telecommunications issues before we let you go, sir. mergers.
at&t-time warner has been struck down by the courts, challenge to it, i should say. t-mobile and sprint coming, not that the congress has a role necessarily, but what is your general view about mergers? sen. markey: in general -- will just take the t-mobile merger. back in 1993, there were two cell phone companies in america. it was $.50 a minute. it was analog, and the phone looked like something that according to echo had in the movie wall street -- that gordon gecko had in the movie "wall street." by 1995, everyone had a flip phone in their pocket. competition, got to keep moving. 10 years later, another smart person came along and said we can figure out how to take that spectrum and create a phone in everyone's pocket that is as
powerful as the computer on the apollo mission to the moon. how does that happen? darwinian paranoia inducing complication. from six companies to five companies to four companies. it just takes the paranoia that you have to continue to innovate out of the system. the consumers benefit from the additional companies that are in the marketplace and when you get down to only four large companies, you are getting into very dangerous territory in terms of getting all the benefits our society gets from innovation and consumer protections. host: i have to ask, does that flip phone still work? sen. markey: the flip phone still works and there are millions of people who use a flip phone and many more who use an iphone, but the point is you have consumer choice now. you can head anyway you want. i can find out now if the red sox have signed a reliever yet before we leave spring training.
i can also call people very quickly on this. it is a convenient phone to be able to walk down the street and be talking to people. i use both. they each have a unique capacity. i can use the iphone for both, but in general, maybe i have a residual loyalty to that 200 megahertz that i moved over in 1993 for this revolution and i can't quite give it up but it doesn't mean i am not moving to the future simultaneously. host: would you use a huawei phone? sen. markey: i would be hesitant to trust a huawei manufactured device. i think we have a lot to learn about china. it is clearly a close working relationship between chinese
private sector companies, especially in the technology sector, and the chinese government and army, so i just think there is a role caution sign that we should put up if we are going to allow these technologies into our country. especially if they don't allow us to have similar access to their telephone networks in their country, so i would be very careful and there are countries around the world that are right now, including the british who are trying to take the huawei system out of their telecommunication system because they now understand there could have been additional elements built in that might coppermine is the privacy of the information that people and the british -- in the british isles. host: as the ranking member on the security subcommittee on the foreign relations committee, when it comes to cyber security, particularly with elections, are we ready for 2020? sen. markey: i don't think we are 100% ready.
i think there is a lot of work to be done in order to make sure that we have built in the proper protections into all of our networks and it is good is an issue, but that is why dan sullivan and i, the chairman of the security subcommittee on the top democrat -- subcommittee, i am the top democrat, will be looking at all of these issues the next couple of years so we are sending up a warning to the cities, states, federal government that more work must be done and it should be done in a telescope timeframe in order to build in the protections against the compromise of our networks. host: when it comes to cyber
security, does bipartisanship have the floor? sen. markey: for me in passing so many of the bills in the past, that has been the case. i am working with a republican from south dakota on a bill to ban robo calls. working with josh hawley, republican senator from missouri on legislation to have a privacy bill for children under 16. we are no longer in the before facebook era. we have to know kids information is being exposed and his compromisable. i tried to find a bipartisan basis because that is the way to go. a republican and liberal are agreed that we will partner on security issues and to do so in a way that is bipartisan because that is always the best way to go. host: finally, 5g. why is it important to u.s. lead to the race or do you think it is important? sen. markey: by g is -- 5g is the next stage, following on 4g. 1g, 3g, 4g, it just keeps moving along and the more it goes, the
more you are able to build it into automobiles, appliances, build it into the whole of our society so we want to be cutting edge. we have lead the revolution the whole way. we don't want to be left behind but at the same time, it doesn't mean we have to follow a chinese model. we didn't follow the japanese model in the 1980's when everyone said my god, atari, sony, mitsubishi, they will bury us. we created our own and became number one in five to 10 years because all of a sudden, america had a plan. america should respect china but
not your them. america with a plan always wins. america without a plan will lose. for us to have our own 5g plan, implement it, and we will be fine. host: sometimes we forget that massachusetts has its own silicon valley. sen. markey: the internet itself is originated in massachusetts. ibm turned down the contract in 1965. ibm turned out to the contract in 1965 and each said we are fine. the contract went to memorial drive in cambridge, massachusetts and they hired the first 20 scientists that began the whole process of creating doppler net and after the legislation passing in congress, it was called the internet because the world wide web have been invented in 1989 by tim
berners-lee who is now at m.i.t. in massachusetts. not only the internet, but many other great things that benefit the united states under the whole world originated in massachusetts. host: senator markey, thanks for joining us on "the communicators." and congressman greg walden is a top republican on the energy and commerce committee. congressman walden, we talked with mike doyle of the democrats and he said his priority is to enshrine net neutrality into law. do you agree with that as a priority? rep. walden: i do in the sense of having an open internet and protection for consumers. he goes a little farther and puts the government in a big controlling role. part of what we call title 2, a
statute originally created to manage monopoly telephone companies. if you think about it, the internet grew up in an era of virtually no regulation and it was only her a two having your period that the legislation he wants to enact oversaw the internet so what we can agree on, we should agree on and that is to prevent bad behavior by the internet service providers. things like blocking, throttling, where the advantage their content over a competitor. even a prioritization, i have said we should address. i think there is bipartisan consensus around that. host: if the democrats come forward with a bill with title 2, will the republicans although -- all vote against it? rep. walden: i wouldn't presume to speak for all republicans. they'll make informed choices, but our party has generally been opposed to what i would call the dead hand of government regulation on the vibrancy of the internet so yes, you would in overwhelming no vote on our side if they want to put a
brand-new and virtually unlimited power in the hand of the federal communications commission. it is kind of ironic in the era of donald trump that my friend mr. doyle wants to give his fcc all this new power. it would be unbridled power and the authority at the fcc. it would go too far over time and have a chilling effect on free and open internet. host: in your view, do you think the federal trade commission is capable of regulating the internet? rep. walden: i do, and in this respect, when you sign up for a service, there is a user agreement. we read all the fine print, right? but it is a commitment they make to their customers that is enforceable by the federal trade commission. they have done that. they have done it with edge
providers and others, and you get a little grace but then, they enter in consent decrees and can enforce them with severe penalty. there is a cop on the beat with the ftc and that is important. but again, i want to emphasize that the growth of the internet for nearly its entire life, the internet, had very light touch regulation. it didn't have this heavy-handed monopoly era government decision-making overhanging it. that allowed for the vibrancy and brilliance to grow here in america. other countries have had heavy-handed government intervention and you don't see the same innovation you see here. host: as you well know, the world wide web is now 30 years old. tim berners-lee, the father of it said recently that we do not have the web we wanted. do you agree with him? rep. walden: it depends on how you described it. he is indeed the father of the internet. he has testified before our committee before and is a brilliant man. i think there is a lot the internet has brought the world. innovation, education, medical
advancements. we all know from competitive shopping opportunities to everything else in terms of social interaction and conductivity in the world, it has been remarkable but it has also brought with it some downsides. some criminal elicit behaviors. i would say degradation of civility as a result of people on social media thinking they are somewhat anonymous so can say really mean and harsh things and bully others. so it has had its downsides, and of course the topic of privacy arises. i think consumers are looking more and more at the apps and saying what are you tracking and where -- are you tracking me? what are you doing with my data?
i thought i was buying a product or service and you are selling that to someone else? it is time for a nationwide privacy law that gives parents, gives users of the internet the opportunity to have more decision-making to have transparency and accountability in how your data are used. host: would you model it on the european gdpr? rep. walden: not necessarily. we have seen enormous cost to compliance. we had a litmus in the committee that said on average, the cost of business $3 billion to comply and there is evidence in europe that some content providers have chosen not to let their content to be provided in europe. newspapers in america, for example because the cost of compliance and risks are too high. we have also seen a fairly substantial decline in investment in startups in europe in this space, and record investment in the united states, so there are probably lots of factors involved in that but it is undeniable that gdpr, you have seen a decline in innovation in europe ended up taking the u.s. they went too far, which sometimes those countries are prone to do, and that is where i favor the light touch that and
transparency and more consumer choice without going to the fairly heavy-handed regulatory regime gdpr put in place. california has a lot that hasn't taken effect yet. it is pretty over-the-top, i think, but maybe we can look at that and what other states have done and find a model that works for the whole country. host: you also mentioned the degradation on the internet. should there be regulation of speech? rep. walden: that is an interesting topic. i have a journalism degree and am a big free-speech advocate. you have seen regulation of speech by the edge providers. we have had hearings with facebook and mark zuckerberg. we've had hearings on twitter, questions about shadow banning, the debate on facebook with the
few ads elizabeth warren had that were taken down allegedly because the used facebook hot logo. it has raised questions about the algorithms, the decision-making, and for those of us on the conservative side, there has been a deep concern about anti-conservative bias. we know it exists in enormous measured in silicon valley. the question is, does it find itself getting subtly integrated into the algorithms and the decision-making of these platforms about what gets put where? where do you stack up in terms of priority? i think those are important questions for congress to look at. host: that leads to the political debate the nation is having now, which is
a common carrier in the information age. they have special protections to guard against the content on their platform being assigned to them in terms of liability. oft is a pretty big waiver liability and responsibility. servicee to regulate providers with heavy-handed government regulation. that they don't want it for themselves. if you think about the internet, it is like the superhighway that we drive down. anntually, you need to take offramp to get to the neighborhood you want to go to. your search engines, social media, facebook, google, and some of the other providers that
have enormous control over what we see, when we access it, and i think this is ripe for the public square for debate and deep consideration. are their competitors to these platforms? or are we seeing monopolies before our eyes? ei would you use a huaw product? >> no.> >> why? >> some of those reasons are in the classified room but i think that our public networks and in our government networks. i would not do that with huawei. congressman walden is the top republican on the energy and commerce committee, former chairman of the dnc committee, we look forward to having him on
the communicators later. >> thank you. pbs was once a government supported service coffee as permitted then a small network with a big name rolled out a big idea. let users decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors for policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of the power of the people, this was true people power. in the years since, the landscape has changed. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. thing. stars are a but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. its nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded by your cable or satellite provider as a public service. on television or online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government.
>> tonight on c-span, a debate on the israeli palestinian rum inct from the soho fo new york city. , the rn randuthor rant institute's research director debated a former army strategist at the theater in new york city. >> i have one question, why is it, and this is hypothetical, israel's state to give to the palestinians? >> the whole framing seems problematic it seems that if israel has a right to exist, there is an equivalent credit for prior starting to exist, yet in this telling it is israel that has the ability, the right even, to grant a quasi-states to the palestinians, really more than an open-air prison in many ways, which is little more than a collaborationist regime in many ways. >> my opponent spoke about pro-freedom perspective and i
agree that should be the framework. but what about the life and situation of actual living, breathing palestinians in gaza today who lack civil rights, who lack the basic freedoms of even arabs within israel who already don't have the same rights as , but who liverael under military occupation 50 years after the 1957 war, in rulinge of every single of an international court or organization. >> you can see the entire debate on the israeli-palestinian conflict tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. up next on c-span, a discussion from the center for strategic and international studies. on u.s. trade with china and chinesecerns on companies potentially spying on u.s. government and u.s. businesses. [applause]